Time to voice your opinion to the DNR... AGAIN....

[Shabby]

For those that DO NOT want the no-wake rule to be reconsidered, Mike Conlin, Chief of Fisheries of the DNR should hear from YOU TOO. Send an email asking him NOT to amend administrative rule #110.40 and NOT TO include Shabbona in the pilot no-wake lakes program. You should state your specific reasons for NOT wanting the rule change. If enough people send the message, they SHOULD NOT start a formal process to consider the rule change AGAIN!

Mike Conlin's email is: MCONLIN@dnrmail.state.il.us

One of the people on CLF claims that it “has so far proven successful for the other lakes that converted to that for larger motors”.

http://chicagolandfishing.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=13893

If the rule change is working so well at the other sites, why was Washington County removed from the pilot program??? Click the link below and scroll down to “110.40 Boats and Other Watercraft” about a ¼ down the page and you can see that Washington County is no longer included.

http://dnr.state.il.us/legal/adopted/110.pdf

I would also like to know why the DNR has “NO RECORD” of the boat that was sunk at Shabbona, and was on the bottom of the lake for two days??? They make a big production of keeping stats for boating accidents, but fail to include this one??? Is it because the DNR would have had to document that the failure to follow the rule of “10hp or less” was what caused the accident???

http://dnr.state.il.us/law3/02/02boatacc.htm

Why the cover-up??? Is it because they know that the rule change will bring more of the same??? Is it because it undermines their attempt to give a self-serving group what they want??? If they excluded this accident on purpose how do we really know what is going on at the pilot lakes???

Should Shabbona Lake have Muskie tournaments??? Did you know that a tournament could commandeer 60% of the available parking in the ramp parking lot on a tournament day? The person who is pushing this now is into muskie tournaments.

http://dnr.state.il.us/legal/adopted/115.pdf

On CLF Joe M. says “Musky fisherman don’t typically fish from little boats with a 9.9. They “need” a boat that is capable of making trips to big water musky lakes like St Clair and Lake of the Woods. Often times these boats are bass boats that “cannot be outfitted with a kicker”. Kicker motors are $2,000+. Not everybody wants to invest $2,000 in a kicker if it would only be used on Shabbona.”

http://chicagolandfishing.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=64916&highlight=#64916

No one “needs” a big boat, they buy what they “want”, just the same as they don’t “need” a NEW $2000+ kicker just to fish Shabbona. There are many perfectly good used kickers that you can pickup for a fraction of what a NEW one costs. I think everyone here can see what type of personality we are dealing with. IT HAS TO BE BIG, AND IT HAS TO BE NEW, AND IT HAS TO BE MY WAY OR IT’S DISCRIMINATION! There’s a guy from the PMTT (Professional Musky Tournament Trail) who spends a lot of time trolling Shabbona with a BIG Ranger bass boat that has a kicker hung on it. If he can do it why can’t the other guys with big boats? He lists “Trolling high speed” as one of his preferred techniques in his profile on the promusky.com site.

If your boat floats you have equal access, it’s how YOU decide to use that access that can be friend or foe!

[No_Wake]

I think I know who it is you are speaking about and if it is, that is NOT a bass boat. That's a walleye boat which is designed to handle a kicker. People who fish muskies from a bass boat like me don't have this option. Bass boats are not capable of handling a kicker motor.

A big boat IS necessary if you love to fish muskies, not just what we WANT. If you really love muskie fishing you will find a way to make at least one trip a year to a big fish lake where you need a big motor and a big boat, not neccessarily capable of being outfitted with a kicker. You may not understand this if you don't enjoy muskie fishing and that is not intended to be a shot at you.

There is a fundemental flaw in your argument about the lake that is no longer in the no-wake pilot that you keep bringing up. Guess how the DNR decides if a lake in that program is successful or not? They use a creel survey at the ramp. Guess who they are asking at the ramp? Guess who is probably going to be most outspoken using this method? How often to you go out of your way to tell someone about a great experience? How often do you go out of your way to make it known you had a bad experience?

[Hobo]

Yeah, well there are many fundamental flaws in these arguements. Here are a few:

1. That people's new big motors will pollute less than the old small motors.
True, but if the hp limit is raised, couldn't there be old big motors with 16:1 fuel mixture ratio leaving oil slicks also?

2. That those against raising the limit are jealous of big motors. That's like saying that I'm jealous that I can't have a jet ski since they are banned from Shabbona.

3. That those against raising the hp limit think that people with big motors are criminals. (sorry, I don't think that, and there are those with little motors who deserve a kick in the pants).

4. That those against raising the limit are green-horn fishermen who run across fishing lines. (in my case, wrong again)

5. That those against raising the limit must like the 9.9hp's racing around.
(I don't have a 9.9hp and I don't like it either)

6. That those against the limit are somehow related to the rental folks.
(I wouldn't know them if I walked into them on the street).

7. That those against the arguement are the kids who rent boats and do donuts in front of the launch ramp.
(not me)

8. That this is all about discrimination.
(That's not why I voted against raising the limit. And you could throw the discrimination argument out for any rule or law out there).

[Albo]

I'm going to let the DNR know that they should keep the 9.9 rule in place at the lake.

Here are my reasons:

Lk Shabbona is a crown jewel in our county. It is highly managed and rightly so. It probably produces more fish per acre that any other lake in Illinois. It gets a tremendous amount of fishing use and was constructed with fishing in mind, unlike most other man-made lakes in the state.

Changing the rules to accomodate bigger boats puts us one step closer to being like the chain-of-lakes, where big boats routinely swamp the decks of small boats. Note, this frequently happens in the No-wake areas. Note, the chain has an extra "management" fee. Note, the chain has extra law enforcement which is incapable of enforcing their own rules. I won't go on.

The 9.9 rule doesn't discriminate against any boaters. It is there to keep things on a smaller scale, and keeping it as is, helps keep the lake just as it was designed. Sure we could ask the state to allow snowmobiles, go-carts, atvs etc. and maybe they would go along, but that doesn't make the place any better and neither does a 150hp mercury (oh yea,, in 'low' gear).

[zoso388]

I would like to see the 9.9 rule remain in force BUT the speed limit should be reduced to a no wake for anyone with a 9.9 or whatever i happen to own a boat with a 50 hp, but i use my electric and get around just fine. i see some good points in each of the arguements which is why i take this position. it seems to me that the ppl with big motors running with an electric are not happy with the fact that ppl with 9.9's are buzzin around the lake leaving wakes and such.the ppl with the 9.9's are worried about an increase of boat traffic, so if the limit is reduced to no wake, we wouldn't have to worry about any more speed demons, or an increase of preasure, not to mention the lake would be a much safer place to spend a day.

[Walleye Eater]

For the love of Christ how did this start up again!!!!!!!!!
Put the beast to death!!!!!!!!

[Kenny]

I sent an e-mail to Mike Colin about the HP limit. Hoping that there was a chance to make Shabbona NO WAKE. He said there are no plans to change Shabbona's HP limit due to the publics overwhelming support of the 10 HP limit.

I would be happy to forward this message to anyone interested.

[No_Wake]

If your message said same as the other poster on another thread, he said it was based on support two years ago. He told me not long ago if enough people showed support now in favor of a rule change, they would have to consider it.